I can’t believe that any rational intelligent person can still believe in Global warming. The proponents of this fallacy even changed the name of Global warming to Climate Change to obfuscate the fact that the Earth really wasn’t warming and the Carbon induced warming which they original claimed would destroy the world was all based on false science.
What is most disturbing is against a preponderance of evidence, no carbon induced warming since 1999, colder global temperatures in spite of elevated carbon in the atmosphere, these fanatics persist in their attempts to change the very essence of human existence based on their erroneous belief. Those who espouse this errant idea of Global warming cling to it like Al Gore clung to the hope that Chads and recounts would change the outcome of the 2000 U.S. elections.
Speaking of Al Gore, who has made millions from the Global warming scare and who is set to make millions more when President Soetoro and the U.S. Congress passes Global warming laws based on his Emmy, Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize awarded work for creating a global environment in which a lie can be accepted for an Inconvenient Truth. These days Gore is neatly sequestered behind a wall of political correctness which doesn’t allow anyone to question anything about his theory of Global warming.
And we all know that a thing or theory that can’t be questioned is not science it is dogma.
Environmental journalist and director of the documentary Not Evil Just Wrong Phelim McAleer attempted to get Mr. Gore to answer a question regarding a Court ruling in Great Britain where the Court ruled that his film An Inconvenient Truth could not be show in the public schools of Britain without the disclaimer warning children that Gore’s film exaggerated claims and was highly partisan in its presentation. (see 3:23 min video)
Mr. Gore lied and was protected by the organizers of the conference of environmental journals where he was speaking.
What the British Court actually ruled was Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, exaggerated alarmist climate claims and represented Gore’s partisan political views on the subject and if shown to students in the British school system the film would have to be accompanied with a disclaimer warning students as such.
But how does a liar like Gore interpret the court’s ruling? Gore states, “The ruling was in favor of the movie by the way the ruling was in favor of showing the movie, Inconvenient Truth that was really the bottom-line on that.”
But that’s not the truth Mr. Gore the inconvenient truth is reported in the London Evening Standard, among other papers as such:
A controversial documentary on climate change which has been sent to thousands of schools has been criticised by a High Court judge for being 'alarmist' and 'exaggerated'.
Justice Burton said former US vice-president Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, was 'one-sided' and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning.
Despite winning lavish praise from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry, Mr Gore's documentary was found to contain 'nine scientific errors' by the judge. –The London Evening Standard (see source)
Even still environmental reporters can’t seem to bring themselves to report unbiasedly on the subject of Global warming even when faced with evidence that the earth is cooling in spite of raising CO2 levels. (see previous post)
Such admission would destroy the Global warming theory and reporters like Paul Hudson are aware of this. In his report What Happened to Global Warming Hudson’s own bias is readily seen thoughout his report. (see story)
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.Even though Hudson started out with this admission he spent the rest of his entire article attempting to breathe life into the failed theory of global warming. To the unbiased eye it was a twisted and failed attempt.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. –Paul Hudson
The theory of Global warming is an International fraud and scandal meant to put an international carbon tax on the people of the world. How else would you go along with a tax on the air that you breathe?
That’s right Global warming is an elaborate scheme to tax the air that you breathe. If you allow it you are truly deceived by those who have twisted reality in the name of Global warming.
The court ruled that British schools could show the movie, albeit with a warning.
ReplyDeleteGore said "the court ruling was in favor of showing the movie."
How is Gore lying?
Come on Anon you ought be better than that!
ReplyDeleteGore said, “The ruling was in favor of the movie by the way the ruling was in favor of showing the movie, Inconvenient Truth that was really the bottom-line on that.”
The ruling was not in favor of the movie as Gore stated. Neither was the ruling in favor of showing the movie as Gore pretends.
The ruling allowed the movie to be shown with disclaimers that the movie was inaccurate and partisan and that's a big difference.
Gore attempted to bottom-line his defense in the false impression that he received a favorable ruling in the British Court which is a lie because he did not.
Hey, didn't you allude once that you are an attorney? If so you really disappoint me.
Gore stated at the presser "The ruling was in favor of showing the movie," which indeed it was. That's how the court ruled. Schools can show the movie. If you call that a lie, it's certainly not much of one.
ReplyDeleteI'll keep your line of thinking in mind in the future when you make allegations of "Liar" in future blog posts. You seem to throw the word around often.
If you call that a lie, it's certainly not much of one.
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly not much of one? Huh? So you admit that it was a lie just not a big one! LOL!
I'll keep your line of thinking in mind when you answer any of my post. "Oh there's the attorney that defends little lies!"
And again the ruling was not in favor of showing the movie. The ruling was that the movie was full of inaccuracies and partisanship and it needed to have a disclaimer on it.
What you're saying would be like saying the Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking the warning on the side is of no consequence.
-- So you admit that it was a lie just not a big one! LOL! --
ReplyDeleteNo, not at all. I said if. You're the one saying it was a lie.
--And again the ruling was not in favor of showing the movie.--
Oh stop it. It certainly was.
If Gore had made a stink that the court ruled that schools could no longer show the movie, now that would be a lie and you'd have a case.
--What you're saying would be like saying the Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking the warning on the side is of no consequence.--
Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking. Health officials are not. Cigarette smoking in private corners has not been outlawed.
My, I have never read that Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking. Please cite your reference...(This is me waiting) You do know that would make all courts prejudice in any case involving smoking and they would have to recuse themselves from any case involving smoking if what you say is true. LOL!
ReplyDeleteYou said:If you call that a lie, it's certainly not much of one.
You could have said, "You call that a lie but it isn't a lie" no you said "it's certainly not much of one."
Suggesting that even it your mind there is room to consider what Gore said a lie!
You're not a very good advocate for your side you'd better get some help 'cause you looking real foolish!!!
You're just wrong on the court's ruling and don't think that I'm going to accept the word of someone that I've caught in a lie regarding the executive order that Soetoro signed!
-- My, I have never read that Courts are in favor of cigarette smoking. Please cite your reference... --
ReplyDeleteHave the courts ruled to outlaw private ingestion of tobacco? No. Are they in favor of it? At this point, obviously so. Can I cite a refererence of this, no, just as I can't cite a reference that they are in favor of breathing in oxygen or drinking tap water.
You clearly stated: "And again the ruling was not in favor of showing the movie."
That's patently false, blogger.
Yes, I remember the Executive Order post. That's where you lied and said it sealed Obama's birth certificate. Remember that?
By the way, how's that birth certificate thing working out for you? The head birther lawyer was slapped with $20,000 in sanctions today. Hope to see another birther post here real soon.
Keep up the great work.
So you can't back up your statement! That says it all anonymous poster. People like you ask for citations but don't give them when asked. You are a joke! You're an embarrasment to anonymous posters
ReplyDeleteAnd don't think that your blowing smoke (pun intended) about rulings regarding private rights regarding smoking can be confused with the courts being in actual favor of smoking.
It is obvious that you have confused the two. (You're not very good at this are you?)
The two are not synonymous and you have proven that not only do you not support your claims with proof, you are a very poor advocate for any position that you argue.(Boy you are one confused person!)
You are an embarrassment to the word anonymous! LOL!
And I repeat the British Court’s ruling was not, I repeat was not in favor of showing Inconvenient Truth. The Court said that Inconvenient Truth was full of error and partisanship and couldn’t be shown to innocent school children without a disclaimer warning the children of it’s incorrect and partisan material!
And look a liar just called me a liar I suppose I’ll lose a lot of sleep over that. A guy who hides in obscure anonym with nothing to lose calls me a liar. Boy you’re a brave one aren’t you.
Like I said an embarrassment to the word anonymous!
You're a hoot. Very entertaining.
ReplyDeleteYeah that's why you like me! (wink, wink!!!)
ReplyDeleteOh, I do like you. Especially when I can correct the errors of your ways and make you see the light.
ReplyDeleteAnd here are a couple of cases where courts ruled in the smoker's favor:
http://howappealing.law.com/013108.html
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/218101-n.y.-court-rules-in-favor-of-tobacco-companies-in-20-mil-suit
Ahhh, true paternal instincts or evangelical designs to make me see the light. How sweet!
ReplyDeleteUm,um Anon...the court ruling in smoker's favor is not the same as showing that the courts are in favor of cigarettes or in favor of smoking.
Jeez I hope I'm not wasting my time on you. You do understand the difference don't you?
Or maybe you're trying to force me to walk into the light... I see dead people (smile)
This post tells that disturbing is against a preponderance of evidence.
ReplyDelete